October 2, 2007

In the Fall of 1980, Clarence Thomas is working for the Republican Senator Danforth, and he's just registered as a Republican for the first time and voted for Ronald Reagan. On the invitation of Thomas Sowell, he attends a conference on economic policy. There, he meets the journalist Juan Williams, and he speaks freely to him -- in a way that he now portrays as naive. Williams writes a column about him -- and Thomas is not too upset about it to decline to pose for the photograph that accompanies it. But now he's publicly exposed as a black conservative -- who criticized his sister for her dependency on welfare -- and he's feeling the emotional toll:

Not long after the column appeared, Kathy [his wife] and Jamal [his son] went to Worcester to spend Christmas with the Ambush family [his in-laws]. I stayed behind in Washington. Christmas no longer meant anything to me, and I preferred putting in extra time at the office to celebrating a holiday about which I no longer cared.

Even as a time to spend with family? There's more to this than dissatisfaction with religion, but he has never even described his loss of Christian faith (though he has described many instances of race discrimination by individuals who purport to be Christians).

I started drinking as soon as they left. I woke up sick and depressed early the next morning. All I could think about was the angry reaction to the Post column.

He didn't think of his wife and child going off without him for Christmas? He didn't think about whether he wanted them gone so he could drown himself in drink? This memoir gives us the material to see how much of his problems were personal psychological problems. His grandfather abused him and deprived him of love. He seethed with anger and couldn't feel the love he wanted to feel for his family. He had a serious drinking problem. But the conscious narrative is that he was the victim of race discrimination, especially coming from liberals who wanted to herd black people and deny them their individuality.

It made no sense to me. Why was it wrong for me to speak my mind? All at once I felt an overwhelming desire to drive down to Savannah and see my family. I didn't understand why -- Daddy [his grandfather] and I were as distant as ever -- but somehow I knew I needed to be with them. I threw my clothes into a suitcase, grabbed a six-pack from the refrigerator, and headed out the door. Freezing rain had fallen during the night and the windshield of the car was thickly covered with ice, but that didn't stop me. I chipped it off and headed south, drinking beer and watching other cars slide off the road and crash into one another.

ADDED: In the next paragraph -- I'm blogging as I read -- he decides he has to leave his wife "in order to survive." He confesses to "the emotional emptiness at the center of my marriage," but he has abstained from writing one unkind word about Kathy. That's understandable, but it makes the story a little false, and I'm left wondering about how honestly he's portraying his emotional trajectory. He hasn't said anything about sex. And he began studying for the priesthood and believed at one time he had a calling into that life that demands celibacy. There are sexual themes that are utterly unexplored, and yet they will become central when Anita Hill appears on the scene.

Not a very flattering portrayal of his life. I wonder if that is because:

1) He is entirely antisocial and sees nothing wrong with his feelings and actions.2) He has decided to give an honest accounting of his life.3) He wants us to believe he is giving an honest accounting of his life, so when he tells a big lie later we will believe him.4) He is part of the high-tech lynching out to get himself.

Therapist: Frank, this is a safe place. A place where we can feel free sharing our feelings. Think of my office as a nest in a tree of trust and understanding. We can say anything here. Frank: Anything? Well, uh I guess I, deep down, am feeling a little confused. I mean, suddenly, you get married, and you're supposed to be this entirely different guy. I don't feel different. I mean, take yesterday for example. We were out at the Olive Garden for dinner, which was lovely. And uh, I happen to look over at a certain point during the meal and see a waitress taking an order, and I found myself wondering what color her underpants might be. Her panties. Uh, odds are they are probably basic white, cotton, underpants. But I sort of think well maybe they're silk panties, maybe it's a thong. Maybe it's something really cool that I don't even know about. You know, and uh, and I started feeling... what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not? (Old School)Labels: family life, sex, Clarence Thomas

Thomas used another "road" metaphor later that I liked better. Because of his background, lack of resources, and any saftey net - he saw his life like a drive down the Pacific Coast Highway with the Cliffs so close - where he could survive a small mistake or defeat in what he had set out to do, but not a big one.

Over the Cliff he would go.

This was a guy that would have been homeless but for the kindness of relatives. Who knew cold and hunger and the daily indignities of the ill-educated circle he was in. Who had a brain but had so much to fix to be allowed to move on up the ladder. A bad exam, and he could have been back in public school. A bad grade in university, and he is finished...

A lot of poor people know that feeling. Back in the 90s, I had "poor phase", family breakup, debt and the same feeling that I might survive a small mistake, but not a big one. A big one and everything would unravel.

Then it was his marriage breakup that had him fretting he was more like his Dad than his grand dad.

I don't think he would have survived the Anita Hill smear if he hadn't remarried.

I left my wife for my own emotional satisfaction, and you won't ever get me to say anything bad about her. She deserves better than that, and than me. I don't see that as a false narrative any more than it seems so from Clarence Thomas.

If you're telling a story and there's a big part of it you're unwilling to tell, then you aren't telling the whole truth. Maybe you have moral reasons that override the interests of those who are reading the story, but that is a reason to criticize the story. There are worse memoir problems -- notably, flattering yourself. But it's still a problem with the book, and it's a special problem here because he is going to criticize another woman.

Well Im southbound, lord Im comin home to you.Well Im southbound, baby, lord Im comin home to you.I got that old lonesome feelin thats sometimes called the blues.

Well I been workin every night, travelin every day.Yes I been workin every night, traveling every day.You can tell your other man, sweet daddys on his way.Aww, ya better believe.

Well Im southbound.Whoa Im southbound.Well you can tell your other man, sweet daddys on his way

Got your hands full now baby, as soon as I hit that door.Youll have your hands full now woman, just as soon as I hit that door.Well Im gonna make it on up to you for all the things you should haveHad before.

Lord, Im southbound.Yes Im southbound.Whoa Im southbound, baby.Said Im southbound.Well Im gonna make it on up to you for all the things you shouldHave had before.

I've long learned not to judge someone by the state of their marriage. I know men who stayed in extremely abusive marriages because they took their marriage vows very seriously. In the end, though, had they not finally left it would have destroyed them and, in some cases, their children. They are still honorable and will not bash their former wives.

(Unfortunately, I've heard far too many women not do the same. In one vivid case, I thought the man was horrible until I heard the full story [and read several documents by law enforcement and the courts]. The truth in that case was 180 degrees from what I had thought.)

"If you're telling a story and there's a big part of it you're unwilling to tell, then you aren't telling the whole truth. Maybe you have moral reasons that override the interests of those who are reading the story, but that is a reason to criticize the story."

It is inconceivable that anyone in public life would ever "tell the whole truth" in a memoir. Even in a book intended for publication posthumously, everyone has some aspect of his life that he will keep private. The reason isn't necessarily "moral" in any relevant sense; it's the value of discretion in the service of matters that should remain private (whether or not disclosure would cause any specific harm to another). Only in fiction, where the author gets to play all-knowing creator, is one likely to find the "whole truth" about anyone's story, and then only if the author is among the less skilled at his craft. Leaving some things out is essential to keep up the interest and maintain some of the mystery of life. It's also a recognition that there really is no such thing as the "whole truth" about any of us -- that's a narrative conceit that makes patterns, adds explanations and creates connections over time that aren't quiet true to the way life was lived. It's just the best we can do in making sense of things. In that sense, too much psychologizing -- especially when applied to oneself in a memoir -- often just confuses banalities, often misleading in themselves, with insight.

"There are worse memoir problems -- notably, flattering yourself. But it's still a problem with the book, and it's a special problem here because he is going to criticize another woman."

So because he is going to criticize Hill, he is obligated to savage his ex-wife and air all of their martital dirty laundry at her expense? How does that follow Ann? Seriously you statement makes no logical sense.

"What a narcissist. It's all about him. It's astounding that he considered the priesthood in light of how he treated his marriage vows."

Do tell. Explain to us everything you understand about his first marriage. Clearly you have complete knowledge of both sides that the rest of us do not to make such a sweeping statement about something that happened over 25 years ago.

Speaking of first marriages Ann, would you like to tell us all about yours? Clearly if you are unwilling to give all of the private dirt down to the grusome aspects of your sex life, you are not being truthful with us. Further unless you are willing to give the unvarnished truth about your ex husband, you have no right to criticize other men like Thomas.

John said..."Speaking of first marriages Ann, would you like to tell us all about yours? Clearly if you are unwilling to give all of the private dirt down to the grusome aspects of your sex life, you are not being truthful with us."

Why not provide some insight that isn't related to something OTHER people say or write?

As for:1. Read a book.(I'm sure others have said it, but I like to think it pertains more to many of the people here...who evidently don't read ANYTHING. (In your case, I suspect your primary reading material consists of song lyrics and poems you filch for what you consider pithy material.)

2. Suck it.(Again, others have said it many times, but I like to "personalize" the statement when dealing with people like yourself.)

*I'm sorry you can't come up with anything other than "quotes" of other people's comments, etc., but that goes hand in hand with not having original thoughts before you comment.

John said..."Speaking of first marriages Ann, would you like to tell us all about yours? Clearly if you are unwilling to give all of the private dirt down to the grusome aspects of your sex life, you are not being truthful with us."

This is a "blog, dipstick...not Ann's "memoir" or "autobiography".

YOU comment here and don't even have the guts to post a "profile."

So what if it is a blog? Althouse is commenting on the world and her life and her past. In some ways a blog is an even more personal memoir. It just picks up at a certain point.

The premise seems to be that just because someone reveals some of their private life, they are obligated to reveal all of it even if doing so would be harmful to someone else. That is bullshit. Thomas is entitled to withhold private facts about his marriage. A memoir is not an all or nothing proposition.

Further, what basis does Althouse have to believe that any of these unsaid facts are in any way relevant beyond her own crackpot psychoanalysis of Thomas? It is not like she has any first hand knowledge of the marriage.

God bless there cupcake, but why don't you just worry about your own commentary and let me worry about me. I am happy to stack my contribution up next to yours and let the chips fall where they may. Why don't you stop critiquing other people's comments and give us the benefit of your own insightful original commentary unfiltered by your thoughts about other styles. I sure that's what everyone else wants to hear. Needless bickering between commentators serves no purpose other that self-gratification. I know that is your hobby, but not everyone wants to witness it so starkly positioned on our screens. All the best.

He didn't think of his wife and child going off without him for Christmas? He didn't think about whether he wanted them gone so he could drown himself in drink

Why wouldn't a man acting like this - so selfishly

Letting your wife take your kid to her parents for Christmas is quite unselfish. A selfish man would have demanded she stay to celebrate Christmas in their own home.

I can understand not wishing to be with a wife that you're estranged from. But your son? During Christmas?

No man here has spent the holidays at their in-laws (for whom no man could be worthy of their daughter), on a hide-a-bed in the living room? It is more likely to be an endurance contest than a carefree family time. Imagine Thanksgiving dinner multiplied by 168 hours.

Way not to respond to anything I said Luckyold son. Better to just make witty retorts like "right" and "dipstick" than actually think about whether writing a personal memoir obliges a person to reveal every aspect of their personal lives regardless of how hurtful those aspects may be to others. Don't bother to think or anything just know that this is Thomas and every accusation against him not matter how unreasonable must be true. Life for lesser beings like you is just easier that way.

That certainly doesn't make it true, nor does it substantiate anything they claim to be true.

I read the book an the man spends most of his time bitching about how he was treated poorly by damn near everybody.

I'd like to see Thomas and Hill take a lie detector test about the allegations he glosses over by dismissing her as Hill his "most traitorous adversary" and describes her as a second-rate worker who was likely to overreact to "slights," and that her testimony was politically driven and used as "a weapon to destroy me, clear and simple." (Have the FBI administer the test.)

1.Lucky,Trooper York's references are dead-on target, and funny to boot. Can't help it if you don't get them. In contrast, your comments could be written by 3 monkeys on Haldol. And probably are.

2. I learned from my love of music never ever ever to inquire about the personal life of the famous or successful. The man behind the curtain is very small indeed. And a memoir is primarily an exercise in self-preservation, so discretion is the better part of chatter.

3. I'm not writing my memoirs until after I'm dead.

4. Lots of men never talk about their relationship with their wives, not even to close friends. Ex-wife chatter is dishonorable. I understand his choice completely.

5. Titus, really. Must everything you write be filtered through your priapic lenses? You're not still 14, trying to capture the danger of being too young in the gay bar. It's quite a bore, a bit like Fonzy at fifty.

jeff, read his words. They are full of self-pity and as someone else said Woe Is Me-ness. And to throw away your vows of marriage and then contemplate the priesthood is completely bizarre. Why should the church believe a person can accept the vows of priesthood when they can't accept their vows of marriage?

I was not commenting on the memoir as a whole. I haven't read it so I have no opinion of the book. I was commenting on Althouse's outragous argument that Thomas is somehow obligated to give every detail of his first marriage because he later criticizes Hill. That is just as stupid as saying that Althouse owes everyone a detailed description of her first marriage because she criticizes other men. One does not follow the other and the fact that Thomas chooses not to tell everything about his first marriage says nothing good or bad about his comments concerning Hill.

John,I think Ann's overall point is that Thomas picks and chooses what he want to discuss or not discuss...and that makes for a pretty thin view of who the man really is.

I know this; Damn near everything he says about Anita Hill in the book has been disproved or investigated and refuted by many.

As an example: Thomas claims Hill was a mediocre employee who had a job in the federal government only because he had “given it” to her.

And that comment itself sums up his self-serving attitude throughout the book.

Anita Hill was a Yale law school graduate (his alma mater by the way) and had passed the District of Columbia Bar exam...and if that doesn't qualify someone from being a "government employee"...we're in trouble.

to throw away your vows of marriage and then contemplate the priesthood is completely bizarre

Well, not as bizarre as contemplating entering the priesthood while still married. :)

Why should the church believe a person can accept the vows of priesthood when they can't accept their vows of marriage?

In order to officially end his marriage in the eyes of the church (obviously a prerequisite for entering the priesthood), Thomas would have to obtain an annulment. This would retroactively make his marriage vows null and void in the eyes of the church (this is what he eventually did). So Thomas wouldn't be violating his earlier vows, so far as the church was concerned.

E.g., Evidence of being inconsiderate or uncaring about the feelings of others.

E.g., Doesn't care whether others would be embarassed by such stories.

People who don't care about other peoples' feelings don't tell them jokes, in my experience. You tell jokes to make other people laugh, after all, and if you don't care if the other person's amused or not then what's the point?

I'm at a loss to think of a single coworker I've ever had who was both anti-social and prone to telling jokes.

Dealing with five adult daughters and their female friends for many years, SMG, I have heard women telling exactly the same kind of jokes that you described; some with the expressed purpose of making me uncomfortable.

Little did they realize that nothing of that kind made me uncomfortable in the slightest after four years at a fraternity in an all mens school, three years in law school with a student body 95% male, and four years in the service. Locker rooms, fraternities and barracks require a working vocabulary which is quite different from that learned

steve simels said..."Clarence Thomas is a liar, a bitter twisted self-loathing fuck, and a seething cauldron of resentment who by temperament and talent shouldn't have been let within fifteen miles of the Supreme Court."

One more point -- you're also ignoring the fact that the picture of Thomas painted here is that of a person who is frankly uncomfortable around other people. He is selfish in the sense of wanting to be alone.

Revenant said..."He is selfish in the sense of wanting to be alone.That kind of person does not crack salacious jokes to his coworkers."

Good Lord...what in the world are you basing this conclusion on?

There are people who also fit the description of those "wanting to be alone" who come to work carrying assault rifles, too...and they're sometimes described as being the last person anyone would ever suspect of being homicidal.

I have friends who are extremely shy, but open up at parties and BBQ's, tell jokes, stories and generally act like...regular outgoing individuals.

And if Thomas really wants to be left "alone"...why did he write a memoir?

Lucky, I really enjoyed your quote. It was on the money, to the point and actually gave more of a clue into your sensibility than a lot of your more combative posts. Sometimes an oblique approach can be very effective. Just a thought. All the best.

If this would of been a liberal writing this book the right would of slammed him for being such a victim but because he is conservative he is a hero.

He is a too bit liar. Also, he was completely unqualified for his position but with many conservatives qualification or experience mean nothing-they only care about the idealogy. So we get Brownie etc. They might not know shit about their job but they will vote the right way and support the party. I think it would be great if Hill and Thomas agreed to a liar detector test.

I personally think, based on my reading of the book, that he's spent his entire life feeling like he's been misunderstood and to a degree, oppressed.

He constantly bitches about affirmative action and such, yet most would look at his nomination as just that.

I think he has some things going on in his mind that most wouldn't want to see or hear about.

And...his situation with Anita Hill is rather strange. He describes her as a loser yet hired her twice and wrote glowing recommendations for her. I think (personal opinion) that she was telling the truth, but I don't know if that warrants his not being confirmed...other than his being a right wing extension of Scalia of course.

Now we're discussing a different point. I.e., not if he did it; but whether he showed a characteristic of those who do.

But selfishness isn't a characteristic of people who crack salacious jokes. Yes, some joke-tellers are selfish, just like some joke-tellers have brown hair. That doesn't mean you can say "ah hah! He has brown hair -- that makes me think he might tell dirty jokes".

Lucky, I think you are a pretty smart guy, and although I don't think we agree about much, actually anything, I think you definitely have a sense of humor and a judicious quote here or there makes your point, for those that are perceptive enough to get it. Remember if all the voices in your head are laughing, you are on the right track. Now back to our regularly scheduled invective.

A man and his wife go to their honeymoon hotel for their 25th anniversary. As the couple reflected on that magical evening 25 years ago, the wife asked the husband, "When you first saw my naked body in front of you, what was going through your mind?"

The husband replied, "All I wanted to do was to f*ck your brains out, and s*uck your tits dry."

I haven't read the book, and I appreciate the blogging-while-reading posts very much. They are more informative than Thomas' press interviews which are somewhat more sanitized.

It goes without saying that anyone who would waste his time and ours caricaturing Justice Thomas as "a liar, a bitter twisted self-loathing fuck, and a seething cauldron of resentment who by temperament and talent shouldn't have been let within fifteen miles of the Supreme Court" is a childishly extreme partisan, and someone who thinks he knows much more than he actually does.

Thomas is coming across to me as a very complex person, someone who has very loud demons he's had to confront, but who was gifted with intellectual and moral courage with which to do battle with these demons. He loves and hates his grandfather just as he loves and hates this country. Far from the "uncle tom" slanders the left hurled at him, he is deeply aware of this society's pervasive racism. Only, in his view, this racism is codified in either of two ways: Jim Crow or Affirmative Action.

Most of us see the latter as progress from the former. He sees them as two sides of the same coin. This is a fascinating view of it from someone who's lived it. Because he votes wrong, he'll be ignored by the people who most need to hear what he has to say. Too bad.

A man and a woman started to have sex in the middle of a dark forest. After about 15 minutes of it, the man finally gets up and says, "Damn, I wish I had a flashlight!". The woman says, "Me too, you've been eating grass for the past ten minutes!"(The Life & Times of Mr Magoo 1965)

Example #2. Successful black person/minority member is against affirmative action. Appropriate response: "You are self-loathing and you never would have had any success but for affirmative action. Oh! The delicious irony!"

Do you think that someone who likes to embarass others by telling dirty jokes is likely to be a selfish or a selfless person?

That's a false dichotomy, especially since selfless people don't exist. But is a selfish person more likely to tell dirty jokes than a normal person? No.

Using others for one's own gratification with no regard for them is usually evidence of the former.

First of all, that's a description of a sociopath, not a selfish person. A selfish person is concerned with himself. A person who sees nothing wrong with tormenting others for his own personal amusement has left "selfishness" far behind.

Secondly, your description doesn't fit Clarence Thomas or the behavior he describes in his memoir, so the question of whether or not your hypothetical sociopath would have been likely to torment Anita Hill is irrelevant to this dicussion.

Thirdly, you are continuing to obsess over ONE aspect of his personality while ignoring all the others. All selfish people are not alike. A person whose selfishness constantly manifests itself in a desire to be left alone is NOT the same kind of person who cracks dick jokes around the office because he's too self-involved to notice that the women are flinching.

Seriously, now, you read a description of his wanting to leave his wife so he could pursue a life of celibate religious and intellectual study and came away from that having missed everything except the fact that he seemed selfish. Did you not pause to think that while he was indeed selfish to think that, a man who selfishly pursues a future of celibate intellectual inquiry is dramatically LESS likely to pass the time talking about Long Dong Silver and pubic hairs on Coke cans than the average man is?

Jim Crow or Affirmative Action. Most of us see the latter as progress from the former. He sees them as two sides of the same coin.

Who's the "us" in that sentence -- liberals? Because the observation that discriminating against whites in favor of blacks is the same sort of racism that discriminating against blacks in favor of whites was is not exactly shocking in conservative or libertarian circles.

"My Grandfather's Son," Chapter Six Page 197“After my divorce I went to my doctor and said, "Doctor, you've got to help me. My penis is orange." He paused to think and asked me to drop my pants so he can check. Damned if my penis isn't orange. The doctor said, "This is very strange. Sometimes things like this are caused by a lot of stress in a person's life."Probing as to the causes of possible stress, the doctor asked, "How are things going at work?" I responded that I was fired about six weeks ago. The doctor told me that this must be the cause of the stress. "No. The partner in charge was a real jerk, I had to work 20-30 hours of overtime every week and I had no say in anything that was happening. I found a new job a couple of weeks ago where I can set my own hours, I'm getting paid double what I got on the old job and the boss is a really great guy." So we figure this isn't the reason.He asked "How's your home life?" "Well, I got divorced about eight months ago." The doctor figures that this has got to be the reason for all my stress. But I said, "No. For years, all I listened to was nag, nag, nag. God, am I glad to be done with that." So he takes a few minutes to think a little longer.He inquires, "Do you have any hobbies or a social life?" The guy replies, "No, not really. Most nights I sit home, watch some porno flicks and munch on Cheetos."

you are continuing to obsess over ONE aspect of his personality while ignoring all the others. All selfish people are not alike.

I'm not obsessing over it. I was simply responding to your posts.

I simply proposed that his, as I saw it, selfish act of leaving his wife and child alone over Christmas, may - may - be indicative of a type of person who is more likely to selfishly tell dirty jokes in order to enjoy the embarassment it causes.

I think - and you disagree with me - that people who enjoy telling dirty jokes in order to watch others squirm do so out of a selfish or self-centered personality. And it may have nothing whatsoever to do about sex.

I also said - several times - that it seemed to me that that type of person would have numerous incidents of selfish behavior.

And that there is no evidence that other women were treated the way Dr. Hill alleged she was.

All psychobiographical conjecture. Which is what, I had assumed, blogs were about. I.e., posting our thoughts and opinions on the blogger's comments.

the observation that discriminating against whites in favor of blacks is the same sort of racism that discriminating against blacks in favor of whites was is not exactly shocking in conservative or libertarian circles.

That's not Thomas's position though. His position is that Jim Crow is as discriminatory against black people as affirmative action is against black people. In his interview with ABC (at least, in the piece written about it, on ABC's website) he seems to disdain what he calls the conservative position that Affirmative action discriminates against white people.

Andrew said basically what I was going to say. Further, it appears from the excerpts of the book provided here and elsewhere, they have the same deeply embittering effect on Thomas. Either way, he is feeling discriminated against, not helped.

I realize he is counted as a conservative/libertarian, but this seems like a far more personal than philosophical or partisan observation on Thomas' part.

---

As for LOS and simels, I'm sorry nobody played with you when you were little. Unfortunately, nothing's ever going to change in that regard. So keep being crabby, keep thinking name-calling is commentary and eventually you'll die and your misery will be over.

Ed Morrissey reports that Thomas's motivation, in part, to write the book was that he (Thomas) has:

[R]eached a point in his life where he wants to let go of some tasks, such as travel and outreach efforts which have taken up most of his spare time from the Court. He has tired of the grind and wants to spend more time with his family.

I had stated health reasons, in part, as being the cause for the book.

In his interview with ABC (at least, in the piece written about it, on ABC's website) he seems to disdain what he calls the conservative position that Affirmative action discriminates against white people.

The characterization that he opposes affirmative action "for entirely different reasons than white conservatives who drive the debate by arguing it's unfair to white people" is ABC's; it is not a Thomas quote. The examples Thomas gives are ones widely used in both conservative and libertarian circles.

I can safely say that the "Shorter xyz" method of commentary has been thoroughly mined and its utility exhausted.

I realize it's a comfortable tool to use, like your favorite hammer. But after awhile, everything looks like a nail. Beyond the laziness inherent in such repetition, the comedy of that cute little snark has long passed its sell-by date.

As to Thomas. I'd like to shake his hand and have a drink with him. He sounds quite interesting.

It's true. What can Thomas do? While Simels is hurling lame insults and reviewing the new Sebadoh concept album for upwards of 350 avid readers, Thomas sits in a lonely office in Washington and merely determines the course of American jurisprudence.

Sucks to be him. Powerless. Rudderless. And, of course, everything he has he owes to proper-thinking white liberals.

What, no award? Friggin' cheapskate.Plus, oddly enough, backwards, your name is Finnish for "hemorrhoid", and, when inverted, contains the ancient Mayan term for "unworthy of sacrifice". Coincidence? I think not.

I wanted to shake Reagan's hand and have a drink with him as well, even though I never actually read his book either. I read several of Al Franken's books, because he used to be funny. I don't want to shake his hand. I read "Hillary's" "book", but I don't want to shake her hand, and I had to have two drinks.

I shook Gore's hand, but never read his book. I did fall asleep during his talk, however. I was very tired. I read "My Pet Goat", and I don't want to shake Mr. Moore's hand, nor Osama's, but definitely Mr. Bush.

I cannot shake Hayek's or Mises' hands because they're dead.

Anyway, LOS, I suspect there was some vague point you were trying to make, but it all comes out sounding like ca ca poo poo blah blah poopyhead.

P.S. Titus, does your numerical appellation contain some reference to the age of maturity you're attempting to display? I mean it.

I am trying to read and expose myself to different authors. So this is what I just purchased from Amazon, The Age of Reason by Sartre; East West by Salmon Rushdie; Sexus by Henry Miller; A Room of Ones Own, Virgina Wolf; Snow by Pamuk; Undiscovered Self by Jung and The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe.

I am half way through The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test and find it fascinating.. I was born in 1970 so this era was something that I only know about through what I have read. It must of been an interesting time to be alive, no?

I am kind of into reading about all of those beat people. Ginsburg, Kerouac, Cassidy, Ken Kesey. It seemed to be a very interesting time.

Oh, fucking believe me, Lucky. I fucking know. No question: Iif I wasn't such a dipticky nutcase when it comes to content and just a fucking asshole when it comes to presentation, I'd be a whole lot fucking more lucid.

"This was a guy that would have been homeless but for the kindness of relatives. Who knew cold and hunger and the daily indignities of the ill-educated circle he was in. Who had a brain but had so much to fix to be allowed to move on up the ladder. A bad exam, and he could have been back in public school. A bad grade in university, and he is finished...

A lot of poor people know that feeling. Back in the 90s, I had "poor phase", family breakup, debt and the same feeling that I might survive a small mistake, but not a big one. A big one and everything would unravel."

That struck a nerve with me. I've lived a much more interesting life than one would guess by looking at me. I guess it is the old curse of living in interesting times. While we always had some sort of family safety net, we did grow up poor and even still to this day, I fear one wrong move and everything I've worked so hard for is gone. Others in my family haven't been so lucky...

In the end though I am my father's son and the wrongs in my life have made me who I am and given me the motivation and skill to reach and attain.

While I have a huge and growing reading list building up while I'm finishing law school and doubt I'll have much more free time when in biglaw, I'll put this book in my list because I can relate.

Your smart Seven Machos-that is how I thought of him. Similar to PJ right/libertarian.

I am surprised that this group has not gathered a stronger base of support to field more candidates for office. I agree with quite a bit with what O'Rourke has to say and believe that many Americans do.

Titus -- I don't know the novel or the New Testament very well either story very well, so it would be impossible for me to explain without research. But I've seen the argument a lot.

As for Ken Kesey himself, Wolfe's view obviously was that he was similar to Jesus in that he was this crazily charismatic guy with talented people around him and a kind of message. The other thing is that Kesey started it all. Raves. The Summer of Love (he was doing it all much earlier). The idea of simply not caring about Vietnam -- all Kesey, at least in Wolfe's telling.

Also, I manifestly do not believe that faculties were more liberal in the 1960s than they are today. Students? Probably.

Ken Kesey's notes while writing "Sometimes a Great Notion" (a better book than"Cuckoo's Nest"). From a collection of notes and rough drafts published by Northwest Review:

Now about this business with the words: wouldn't it be easier to turn the mind to one task at a time and quit worrying about so many. As I rewrite I'm trying for effect with arrangement and interwoven P.V., something to give the reader more than one eye, tis is going to be tough enough. I should devote most of this time through to that. To arrangement alone. I've got plenty techniques mow for prisming the P.V., all of which need polishing badly, so I don't need to continue experimenting, at least not in the time left me, I should go right on through as quickly as possible, all the way through, in fact, before I so any more yellowpage work, and saving enriching the covubulary for a later stage. I'm trying to block in and tend to detail all at once.

Titus- Have you read any Hunter Thompson? He was a acquaintance of Kesey's, and introduced him to the Hells Angels in the 60's. PJ ORoark is Libertarian or a South Park Republican.

Clarence Thomas is a interesting man. From where his life started to where he ended up makes for a fascinating story. I would also like to meet him. Anyone who thinks he doesn't have the mental horsepower to sit on the SC just isn't paying attention. Or letting their racist or idealogical blinders block the obvious.

Titus,Wolfe's nonfiction works are among my favorite books. He is an astute observer of human behavior. He cannot be pigeonholed into right or left, I think. He even did a book of cartoons during the 1970s, a rare one, but worth his wise commentary.

Wow, what a brutal thread. I hope Anita Hill isn't listening in or a bunch of you might be called on the carpet for your language.

Trooper's jokes had me laid out on the floor laughing.

Somebody called Thomas narcissistic. For cryin' out loud, this is an autobiography; who should the main topic be?

I don't get the digs against our hostess. This is a blog, not a tell-all book. To demand that her personal life's details are a prerequesite for questioning Thomas' editorial choices is bizarre, at least.

How many have read an autobiography and disliked the author more than before you read the book? G. Gordon Liddy's left a very negative impression of the man, in my view.

I think it's fair to call Tom Wolfe a cultural conservative. He doesn't bother with politics much, except inasmuch as it illuminates cultural trends that fascinate him much more.

But there's no ambiguity about where he stands on much of modern art, architecture, sexual mores, amoral business practices, celebrity narcissism and so on...he sees the world as having taken a distinct turn for the worse sometime in the last 100 years. I think the world of 1890 would've been a happy place for Tom Wolfe. Or maybe 1920.

Titus22, your request for a civil discussion is much appreciated. The name-calling around here is more than depressing, and it's driving out the good commenters across the political spectrum. LOS has somehow positioned himself as the spokesman for the left on these comment threads and, as I'm sure you'll agree, he falls short of coherence most of the time.

What he and a few others don't get is that many of the commenters here are genuine independents. He is so quick to label people. Everything is black and white, and he's in a hurry to put everyone he encounters into one category or the other, rather than engage the ideas being expressed. It's incredibly boring and makes me want to stay away from this otherwise superb blog for days at a time. If the next time I come back I see you being thoughtful in your disagreements, and LOS, dtl, simers et.al. marginalized as they should be, it will be a welcome change.

I recommend a hobby, such as stamp collecting, or perhaps learning to play the recorder. A chess match should keep your mind away from this. A good game of whist would do the same.

For the sports-minded, why don't you take up cricket? It's an interesting game, rather more subtle than baseball, with the advantage that it's played in many more countries.

Another passtime would be to read the damned book you are talking about.

Of course, for the ultimate hobby, you could all just practice not breathing. Think of the carbon savings. Also, if all the Althouse commentors were to disappear from the earth at once, it would raise the collective I.Q. of the planet.

If you must know, my hobbies are gardening, opera, reading, quilting, and handcuffs.

My infrequent visits to this blog should be called, "A Series of Unfortunate Events." The last two times I was here, a similar brawl was underway. I came this time, because I was interested in reading Judge Thomas's book, and this place turned up in a Google search.

I came. I saw. I gagged.

I agree with Mr. Stodder above, and plan to visit even less frequently.

In the meantime, you all should take a deep breath, and count to 1000, slowly.

Loser -- Ignoring the vitriol, you actually sound like you could be a worthwhile contributor here.

The fact is that there are some brilliant posters here (some, sadly, have abandoned us) and they often seem to get lost in the fray thanks to a few shallow, very loud, rude people.

As for me, I sometimes get annoyed and I start protesting.

I think the rule should be: get civil or be deleted. But that's just me. That goes for everyone, obviously, and so 80 percent of my posts today would be deleted but I have been being responsive, and I think the people I am trying to reach understand that.

losergrrl has improved the readers' experience by...??? ad hominem attacks, crypted sexual references, anti-American sports quips, and death wishes all around. Gosh, I'm sure the next few visitors will find that the conversation has taken a turn for the better.

Scroll up to about 11:30 and you'll see what I thought after reading this mess. It's been an ugly thread, but her contribution lowered the quality. The casual observer shouldn't overestimate his importance to the overall scheme of things.

If she were a frequent contributor, or even a sporadic one, that would be one thing. I bounce around blogs and read the comment sections, but generally refrain from jumping into the conversation, since I'm just a visitor. She'll likely not read what I posted, since I'm sure she's moved on to find another offense at the next blog.

To take such a sanctimonious and critical stance is quite common on anonymous comment sections at blogs. I just thought I'd point out the hypocricy of her comments, that's all. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just having a bit of fun pushing the buttons of someone who's advertising their location.

Compared to the three day nap that is cricket, baseball is rollerball. And thirty-nine countries play baseball in Europe alone (Regensburg is looking to win its first-ever Bundesliga championship, for example). Baseball is most popular in the US, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Japan, England, Scotland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Venezuela, Austria, Taiwan, Italy, South Korea, Cuba, Ireland, Dominican Republic, Singapore, Vietnam, Belgium, Colombia, Finland, Nicaragua, and Panama.

You cannot tell the whole truth. You can't. The whole truth can't be told.

I write this as someone thinking I'll have to write a memoir some time. And there are things I will just not be able to tell. I know exactly what they are. People wouldn't want to hear them, either. You can't ever tell the whole truth.

titus: "So this is what I just purchased from Amazon, The Age of Reason by Sartre; East West by Salmon Rushdie; Sexus by Henry Miller; A Room of Ones Own, Virgina Wolf; Snow by Pamuk; Undiscovered Self by Jung and The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe."

Mr. Wolfe offers a personal incident as evidence of "what a fashion liberalism is." A reporter for the New York Times called him up to ask why George W. Bush was apparently a great fan of the "Charlotte Simmons" book. "I just assumed it was the dazzling quality of the writing," he says. In the course of the reporting, however, it came out that Mr. Wolfe had voted for the Bush ticket. "The reaction among the people I move among was really interesting. It was as if I had raised my hand and said, 'Oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you, I'm a child molester.'" For the sheer hilarity, he took to wearing an American flag pin, "and it was as if I was holding up a cross to werewolves."

George Bush's appeal, for Mr. Wolfe, was owing to his "great decisiveness and willingness to fight." But as to "this business of my having done the unthinkable and voted for George Bush, I would say, now look, I voted for George Bush but so did 62,040,609 other Americans. Now what does that make them? Of course, they want to say--'Fools like you!' . . . But then they catch themselves, 'Wait a minute, I can't go around saying that the majority of the American people are fools, idiots, bumblers, hicks.' So they just kind of dodge that question. And so many of them are so caught up in this kind of metropolitan intellectual atmosphere that they simply don't go across the Hudson River. They literally do not set foot in the United States. We live in New York in one of the two parenthesis states. They're usually called blue states--they're not blue states, the states on the coast. They're parenthesis states--the entire country lies in between."

Hi, amba. Are you up late or up early? I'm up early. Reading Justice Thomas's book put me to sleep at 9 PM. I'm back up again and ready to finish the thing.

Of course, you're right that you can't tell the whole truth. How boring that book would be... and long. But the memoirist is responsible for the selections he makes, and if he's protecting some people -- especially himself -- while slamming a select few, I'm going to be critical. On the first page of the book, he slams his father for leaving him and he wonders how a man can do that to his children. Later, he leaves his own son, and he really doesn't explain why. He wants to protect the wife and child. Okay. But if he's purporting to write a good book, that's a problem. Find a way to finesse it.

My biggest problem at this point is that sex is not talked about at all, and sex is going to be the issue with Anita Hill.

And whoever said I should reveal the same things about my own life. Maybe I would in a memoir, but I don't see any post here where the failure to say something personal about myself makes something I have chosen to explore hard to understand. I choose not to write about my family, and I am not trying to present a psychological profile of myself for your enlightenment.